Data Deconstruction: Binance's New Coin Futures Three-Stage Liquidity Cycle

Author: @0xBenniee, @gao2750

Data Analysis: @gao2750

Introduction

Over the past month, Binance launched a total of 29 USDT perpetual contract trading pairs, continuing the high-frequency listing pace since the third quarter. Compared to the normal pace of about 20 pairs per month historically, Binance’s new contract additions have significantly increased over the past three months—19 in August, 32 in September, and 29 in October—maintaining a high level overall. These include popular meme tokens, AI projects, public chain ecosystems, and other hot sectors on BSC. This wave of high-frequency listings not only reflects the exchange’s active pace of new launches but also indicates that project teams prefer to launch during periods of ample market liquidity to facilitate TGE exits or secondary hype.

This phenomenon of “concentrated listings” essentially tests the market absorption capacity and the efficiency of hot spot diffusion. Comparing data from the previous two months shows that October entered a clear “contract intensive period.” However, in terms of price performance, most new contracts surged in the first week and then quickly retreated, with an overall large average decline. Only a few strong tokens defied the trend and rose against the market, reflecting an increasing disagreement and contest among major players and traders.

During the initial phase, market sentiment briefly heated up, with some new tokens’ trading volumes skyrocketing several times in the first week, attracting short-term capital influx. But subsequently, trading volume waned, and internal correlations within the sector decreased. Strong tokens continued to attract funds, while weak tokens cooled rapidly. Capital behavior shifted from “emotional gambling” to “structural filtering,” with dominant forces beginning to shift from retail sentiment to institutional-style strategic positioning.

This article will analyze the new listing rhythm, changes in capital structure, and market sentiment evolution to explore the liquidity harvesting path and structural opportunities behind Binance’s October new token wave. By examining core indicators such as trading volume, open interest, and long-short ratios, we aim to reveal how market sentiment transitioned from short-term frenzy to structured contest, and the strategic layout of major funds.

Macro Observation: Capital Flows and Market Structure During the Contract Intensive Period

This chart summarizes the total trading volume, open interest (OI), and long-short ratio of Binance’s new perpetual contracts launched in October, providing an overview of capital flow and market sentiment trajectory. Overall, the market structure in October evolved from “high volume initiation” to “breakthrough in open interest.”

Data shows that total open interest hovered between $200 million and $250 million for nearly half a month, during which trading volume steadily declined, indicating a wait-and-see and structural adjustment phase. Around October 21, open interest surged, reaching nearly $350 million, forming a clear “capital accumulation turning point.” Notably, during this phase, the growth in open interest was accompanied by a continuous decrease in trading volume, implying that new positions were mainly from medium- to long-term investors rather than short-term traders. The dominant market forces began shifting from emotion-driven to structural positioning.

• Phase 1: High Volume Initiation (Early October)

Trading volume remained high throughout the month, with open interest and prices oscillating at low levels. Sentiment was active but capital did not settle, mainly driven by short-term speculation.

• Phase 2: Low Volume Accumulation (October 5–15)

Trading volume continued to decline, while open interest steadily increased, indicating the market was entering a chip consolidation phase. Major funds began tentative building of positions. On October 11, a “Black Swan Event” briefly triggered panic, causing rapid withdrawal from high-leverage positions, amplifying short-term volatility and reducing trading volume. However, this shock also created a more favorable environment for structural funds to build positions, completing early capital layout and preparing for a breakout.

• Phase 3: Position Breakthrough (October 20–25)

Open interest sharply broke through the plateau, with prices and long-short ratios rising in tandem, and capital concentration significantly increasing, leading to a sector resonance rally.

• Phase 4: Volume Decline, Price Stabilization (End of October)

Trading volume dropped to monthly lows, while open interest remained high, indicating a phase of high-level oscillation and structural contest. Major funds did not exit but waited for a new liquidity rebound to trigger the next wave of sentiment and volatility.

Overall, October’s new contracts sector exhibited a structure of inverted trading volume and open interest. Capital shifted from short-term gambling to medium-term holding, with the sector transitioning from emotion-driven to structural capital accumulation.

Structural Differentiation: From Resonance to Filtering, the Logic of Strong Tokens’ Rise

Alongside the continuous increase in open interest and the convergence of trading volume, internal differentiation within the new token sector became apparent. The correlation between strong and weak tokens gradually declined, shifting from “sector resonance” to “structural filtering.” Data shows that since mid-October, some tokens’ prices and holdings increased in sync, forming typical capital resonance structures; others, however, lost liquidity support amid declining volume, entering sideways oscillation without clear trends.

“Taking EVAA as an example”

After October 11, EVAA showed structural signals of open interest expansion, with the long-short ratio remaining high. This “volume-price resonance + position expansion” combination may indicate concentrated institutional involvement and an anticipated trend confirmation. While other tokens remained in consolidation or shrinking volume, EVAA’s trend diverged early from the overall sector, demonstrating a distinct independent movement.

As seen in the chart above, the first significant volume surge in mid-October coincided with the upward movement of open interest, indicating that market liquidity was absorbed by major funds in a short period, resulting in a structural breakout. Subsequently, the price steadily rose, and even as overall trading volume in the sector declined, EVAA’s holdings remained high and did not decrease, showing that major funds were not eager to realize profits but chose to extend the trend cycle through controlled pacing. In contrast, other small to medium contracts experienced brief follow-on buying but lacked sustainability, quickly falling back.

This “the strong get stronger” structural pattern suggests that market funds are actively flowing into more certain assets. Although overall capital efficiency in the sector declines, core assets’ ability to attract funds improves.

From a capital behavior perspective, the divergence in late October reflects a liquidity reallocation. Short-term capital exited high-volatility tokens, while major funds concentrated in a few trending tokens, forming locked positions and maintaining high open interest. This phase’s shrinking volume no longer indicates waning enthusiasm but signals a mid-term control and rotation of liquidity.

Capital Structure Analysis: From Liquidity Zones to Harvest Efficiency

Looking at the overall data from August to October, the capital structure of the new token sector over the past three months shows a clear pattern of position expansion and volume contraction.

Open interest increased from about $600 million to $1.6 billion, while trading volume declined from high levels, indicating a shift toward low-frequency, controlled market manipulation.

Meanwhile, the long-short ratio steadily rose, funding rates turned positive from negative, and liquidation scales decreased—these signals collectively depict a typical deleveraging and structural accumulation phase.

Defining Liquidity Harvest

“Liquidity harvesting” is not merely about dumping or exiting positions but involves funds leveraging market attention to complete a liquidity cycle.

It can be defined as: a full capital loop where market liquidity is attracted, concentrated, triggered, and cleared.

This cycle generally includes four stages:

• Attracting liquidity — through new listings, narratives, airdrops, and expectations to draw attention;
• Concentrating liquidity — major players use small chips to amplify volatility and guide funds;
• Utilizing liquidity — during emotional peaks, trading volume and prices are pushed higher;
• Clearing liquidity — through funding rate reversals, liquidations, or oscillations to realize gains.

This process is a market-wide behavior, not limited to a single token.

Especially in the perpetual contracts market for new tokens, the funding rate, open interest, and trading volume resonance cycle often corresponds to a “liquidity reallocation” process. When including the post-liquidation re-accumulation phase (OI and volume recovery), a complete capital cycle typically lasts about 22–28 days.

From the perspective of the new token sector, liquidity is highly concentrated in a small number of strong tokens—about 5% of the assets contribute over 70% of trading and volatility.

This indicates that major players do not seek broad coverage but repeatedly create emotional peaks within high-volatility assets to maximize liquidity utilization at minimal cost.

The core logic of this structure is—maximizing market maker efficiency:

• When total holdings of new tokens approach the upper range of 200–500 million, market liquidity reaches saturation, nearing the harvest point;
• When volume declines but holdings do not, major players wait for new narratives to trigger;
• When funding rates turn positive and volatility increases, it usually signals the start of a new “liquidity utilization” phase.

Therefore, the capital operation logic in the new token market is not about “continuous investment,”

but revolves around a cyclic process of “creating liquidity → absorbing liquidity → harvesting liquidity”.

By analyzing the relative rhythm of open interest, volume, and funding rates, we can infer the efficiency window of major funds—currently about 22–28 days.

Within this timeframe, major players typically complete a full cycle from attention creation to liquidity realization.

Conclusion

Looking back at this three-month new token cycle, from emotional resonance to structural differentiation, from broad netting to fine filtering, the market has completed a typical “liquidity cycle”:

Funds are attracted, concentrated, released, and then return to calm. In this process, attention replaces market value as the true market pricing power; meanwhile, the goal of major funds has shifted from driving trends to managing liquidity.

New tokens expose the market’s true mechanism in the shortest cycles, creating maximum wealth effects through volatility. It is foreseeable that the current calm is not the end but the beginning of a new cycle. Once new narratives ignite, these accumulated funds will fuel the next wave of volatility.

What truly matters is not which token will skyrocket but how capital flows and how sentiment is reconstructed. Observing retail and major players’ positions in the liquidity contest is key to understanding the market.

Narratives and cycles may repeat, but the laws of capital behavior always leave traces.

Data source: Binance perpetual contract market public data.